08/15/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission August 15, 1979 had moved into a residential, single family community, and had expected it to stay that way. He felt the zoning in that area should be changed from commercial to R-1, and suggested the rezone decision be postponed until that was handled. He also pointed out that the property at 790 Vicky Lane was zoned partially commercial and partially R-1. Another resident, in reference to (3), said that approximately one-third (6) of the houses on the block were suitable to become duplexes and could at some time apply for rezoning if this one were granted. Mr. Paulson indicated that although the petition presented at the public hearing was not available, 90 percent of the property owners who were immediately adjacent to 790 Vicky Lane were opposed to the change, whereas those who signed the statement not opposed to the change either did not live on Vicky Lane or lived farther down the street. Mr. Shearen raised the question of whether either list constituted two-thirds of the adjoining property owners within 300 feet; however, Mr. Gourley noted that while this was required for a special use permit, it was not required for a rezone application, although it was felt to be a consideration. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Brunner were asked to indicate on the map the locations of the homeowners who had signed the petition and declaration; taking into consideration all those within 300 feet of the property, it was felt to be fairly even. Mr. Paulson felt several homeowners should not be considered, as they did not have access to Vicky Lane, and he also had not contacted them and felt they might change their minds. Mr. Gourley reviewed the background of the house, which had been used as a duplex up through 1975; he had been in contact with one of the previous owners, and verified that when the property had changed hands in 1976, the new owners had dropped the R-2 use at that time. Mr. Reinert felt that the P & Z should consider whether they wanted R-2 use in this particular area, as it might start a chain reaction; if not, it should be restricted to R-1. He also felt the wishes of the people directly affected by the change should be considered. Mr. Brunner pointed out that in developing new land, it was a common practice to use R-2 as a buffer between commercial and residential property, and that in this case, they would serve as a buffer between the commercial property to the south and across the street. In reference to the septic problems brought up by Mr. Paulson, he indicated that there were not signs of damage , and also that the property was larger than the surrounding residential lots and would probably have fewer people living there than now live on some of those lots. The structure of the building would not change; it was set up as a duplex, had been there 14 years, and was rented out periodically up until 1976; and because it had not been rented from 1976 through the present, it had lost its duplex status. No one on the street had moved in since 1976, so they had either moved there or were living there when it was a duplex. In respect to the num- ber of cars that would be parked, he noted that the City had an ordinance that covered vehicles on the street, which would be followed, and there were lots now that had 5 or 6 cars parked on them. Also, Mr. Brunner felt he did not want the value of his property to decrease either, and that the only thing that would affect the area would be if commercial came in behind them, or if anyone let their property run down. Also, it had been brought up that there would be nothing preventing others from becoming duplexes as well, but Mr. Brunner noted that it would not be just a matter or rezoning, but physical alteration of the homes as well. Mr. and Mrs. Brunner indicated they realized that if and when they decided to rent as a duplex, they would have to meet all building codes as far as putting in a new septic system and well. It was noted that if rezoned, it would not be necessary to specify separate sewer and water systems as this came under the State Building Code, and was not a concern of zoning. Mr. Reinert felt there was a reason why certain properties revert back to certain zoning, and that was to establish uniformity; however, Mr. Gourley noted that in this case, the zoning,rather than reverting back to R-1,it reverted to commercial. Mr. McLean raised the question of whether a new application was necessary. The present applica- tion was corrected to read "rezone to duplex status, R-2, from commercial and partial R-1 or from general business and R-1, whichever applies," and was signed and dated by Mrs. Brunner. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend approval to the Council of the zoning